memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Archduk3/Archive 11
RE:Memory Alpha Wiki Most wiki's use their actual sitename as their mainpage, in this case "Memory Alpha Wiki". Having a redirect from that page to the mainpage would mean better SEO. Mark (talk) 14:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC) United Earth Mirror Universe Logo On Talk page Just wanted to let you know that your logo isn't always centered on your talk page and causes problems if you want to view diffs...not a big deal just thought you should know — Morder (talk) 16:26, January 4, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, wikia sucks. - 03:23, January 5, 2011 (UTC) Appearances of regulars Moved to Talk:Wesley Crusher Block appeals Dear sir, We might not be Wikipedia, but would you kindly explain how then anyone would be able to appeal a block on Memory Alpha without a block appeal template? -- 08:42, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :Their own talk page. Excepting spam bots, blocks placed on users allow them to edit their own talk page in most cases, unless there is some reason that they shouldn't be able to. Also, blocking someone at MA doesn't block them at wikia central, so even if they're block from editing their talk page by accident, a request to be unblock could be placed there and brought to the attention of an admin here. - 09:07, January 14, 2011 (UTC) Thanks for Edit Thanks for putting my photos in a gallery. Neophyte, I couldn't figure out to edit them in and ignored the thumbnail button thinking it meant tiny. Appreciated. --Joseph Steven :That was actually sulfur, I just changed the file extension to the jpg one from the pdf, and fixed the category. Also, images in a gallery don't use the "thumb" markup, since the size of gallery images are controlled by our corporate overloads. :) - 02:33, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Scroll boxes and mobile Safari/iOS/Webkit Archduk3, Cool page. Just an FYI: mobile Safari (and hence iOS devices, such as the iPod touch and iPhone) can't scroll on the scroll boxes. The one of your article creations/overhauls is a good example. I can only see the first several. The collapsable list thing works, though. Just thought I'd let you know, for you seem to be an advanced Web ML/code guy. I'm the only registered user forced to use an iPod chiefly, so it probably doesn't concern you. Still, thought it'd interest you that I'm "locked out" from seeing them – on many pages, not just yours! 12:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :Have you tried this? - 13:15, January 23, 2011 (UTC) That's for the iPad, but I'll try it with the iPod. (The iPod uses a mini Safari.) But thanks for the help! BTW, you're a great admin, IMHO. :) 18:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :This might work. Beyond that, all I can say is apple products lead to the dark side. - 23:05, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Heh. Yeah, no Flash support, which is the worst. They won't even try. (It's all I have, though – a gift for my prolonged recovery.) But thanks for the link! 21:17, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Supposedly, there are a few apps that will get flash content to work on the dark side, but I'm not sure if any of them would work in this case, as they seem to be mostly for watching videos. Smokescreen sounds promising, but without trying it I wouldn't know. - 21:33, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Man, thanks! I've not hooked my iPod to a computer/iTunes yet (health issues+dead motherboard, though strangely, the router running off it is still putting out WiFi....) Anyway, I asked this question on Sulfur's page then realized I probably should've asked you: he's so busy fixing errors, and you know a lot about the tech/MediaWiki/MA logistics. Could you take a look, if/when you've the chance? Thanks. Oh, and I'm really excited about the possibility of getting Flash; not having it locks me out of many sites. :-/ 19:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC) Thanks Hey Archduk3, just wanted to say thanks for being a polite and understanding admin. Whenever I have had the pleasure of talking to you on talk pages or what not you have always phrased your words very constructively and never ridicule and for that I thank you. Keep up the great work. :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 17:32, January 25, 2011 (UTC) "Jonathan Archer" no longer in use! Just to let you know, I've finished what I was doing on Jonathan Archer for the time being. I'll work on some more sections tomorrow or the day after. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Possession Will do. Thanks for the heads-up. [[User:QuiGonJinn|'QuiGonJinn']]Talk 16:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Bringing this to your attention Hey TrekFan and I decided to split the astrophysics article, placing some of its content on the new astrophysicist article (formerly a redirect). What I tried to do was separate "events related to astrophysics" (keeping them on the original page) while taking the list of astrophysicists (which was intermingled with the former) onto the astrophysicist page. I'm now not sure if I did it correctly (it was my first time). I'm vaguely aware of "merging" articles to preserve edit history. Should've that been done here? ie, merging the content from the original onto the new (duplicating it), and then edit? Now it looks like I'' created all content on the new page, when really I merely selected portions from the a-physics article, and did some editing+formatting. Sorry if I caused a mess! 21:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC) :There isn't really any way to "split" a page history, so the rule of thumb is to mention where the info is from in the edit summary when splitting a page, so someone who is interested in the history knows were to look. The main thing you should look at now is the incoming links at the old page, to make sure links that should be pointing to the new one are, well, pointing there. - 22:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Oh. Oops: I already did it, so I can't change the edit summary. Should I do a minor "pseudo-edit" just to leave a note in the edit summary? Or do you think the edit summaries I left in the Astrophysics (here) and Astrophysicist (here) articles are sufficient? And about the second thing: do I just click on "what links here", check all the pages, and examine the links, fixing as necessary? I'm just trying to ensure I understand! (You actually did a good job explaining – it's just my opacity.) Thanks. 16:52, January 27, 2011 (UTC) :Since it's already done, don't worry about it, what's there is already enough to figure out what happened if anyone is interested. As for the links, yes, it is just going through the what links here page and correcting as necessary. - 17:17, January 27, 2011 (UTC) Ok, thanks. I checked every link and corrected as necessary. I also added a note on the Talk:Astrophysicist page letting people know the list of them needs to be completed by checking the "what links here" page. I found more astrophysicists during my link updating but can't add the rest now. Is that an ok think to post on a talk page? 17:25, January 27, 2011 (UTC) :You can post almost anything on a talk page, so long as it has do do with improving an article. - 17:29, January 27, 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I asked that because of [[User talk:Cepstrum#leaving lengthy comments on article talk page|'this']], which said I really messed up on this; it's made me cautious/nervous about article talk pages! (check it out) I'll leave you alone now. Job well done, Archduk3! :) 17:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC) PS Though it ''would be nice to get your take on the above; was I way out of line on the Freiberger article? It seemed like a personal attack, but no one said anything about it, so I figured oh well....it'd be nice if some admin could have stepped in to help/advise me on that one. :-/ :You are suppose to explain why a pna was added to an article, just maybe not in so many words. You tend to use a far more formal writing style, which takes up more space than a the standard, less formal one. To be honest, I haven't seen anything that would be "out of line," but DC has been told repeatedly not to keep reiterating points with lengthy paragraphs on talk pages, and based on her recent activity I wouldn't be surprised if her posts had more to do with that than anything you did. That said, "concise" is always better than "rambling". - 18:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC) --KTHNXBY! (Trying to be concise) ;-) Any chance I could get some help if that arises again? I don't want to, as she preemptively accused me of, go "whining" to people. Still, I could've used some support/advice on how to deal with my brevity problem as well as the hurtful (though helpful, as I replied), out-of-the-blue comments. It was a highly unpleasant experience. Also: I hate to think I've been cluttering MA with my "ramblings" on article talk pages. I want to help, not harm. It's difficult for me to judge properly what/how much to write. Have you any idea how I might know whether my posts are rambling without bothering an admin? (as I'm doing now – sorry for taxing your patience!) 17:41, January 28, 2011 (UTC) Can a bot fix this ST.com link problem? Time to bother you again. ;-) I keep finding external links to startrek.com articles that don't work. I think this is a result of their significant – and recent – overhaul: now the site redirects all the old links to the generic "database" page. I try to fix them when I can (using and the WBM), but it's a tedious process. Moreover, I don't think I (and a few others) have been able to do this to more than a tiny portion of the links, which means readers who are unaware of the WBM won't get to see the linked content. It seems a like a task for a bot. Yes? I'm guessing the answer is "no", for I'd have thought someone other than I would have suggested this long ago. Or maybe no one has noticed/cared....Should I just keep correcting them, or can your bot (or another's) crawl through MA and do this automatically? Thanks. (It's a shame ST.com ruined everyone's incoming links – not just MA's!) 12:36, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Yes and no. There are three types of ST.com links really: :# Those that "work" and just need to be updated :# Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM with link text :# Those that definitely don't work and need to be pointed at the WBM, but are used as references :The first pass really has to be done by hand, and while doing that, the other things can be slowly cleaned up at the same time. It's all more than a bit messy. -- sulfur 14:07, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed explanation, Sulfur. I think I now see why a bot can't do this....but *I don't quite follow #1. Does that mean searching manually (either using their search or google to search the domain) for that same article on the "new" ST.com site, and if it's there, changing the link to the new address? * #3 confuses me. How's it different from #2? *Anyway, bottom line: should I stop using the broken link template unless I can't find the article on the site? (Up to now, I've been using it whenever a link to ST.com redirects me to the generic database page.) Oh, and one more question: I've noticed that some links to ST.com on MA point directly to the WBM. When I "fix" them by converting them to the template, the WBM link displays the usual page wherein you must select the date/version of the archived page. This adds an extra step for the reader, for otherwise one could just link to the desired WBM's archived page and not make the him/her figure out which one to select. (I'm thinking those unfamiliar with the WBM may get confused if a link takes them to the date selection page.) Is there a way to bypass that and have the template link to a particular WBM archived page, obviating the need to make readers choose a page/date? 18:52, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::1 would be links to pages that still exist, but have moved. 2 are inline links, as in a link like , to pages that don't exist anymore, and 3 are links used as reference link to pages that no longer exist. ::As to your question about having a template link to a version of the page directly at the WBM, there's no neat way to do that. Right now, you can just use the link already on the page to use . Having it link directly to a version of the page would required a different link entirely, and the purpose of the template is only to show that a reference did exist at one time, not actually point to that reference, since there may be pages that the WBM doesn't have archived. - 19:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Better to link to the archive as a whole, since some of the pages have different versions. If someone is confused by the ability to select by date and see when the page was archived, that person has more issues than just that. :) :The different between #2 and #3 is a link that is used as a reference (and shows up as a number, such as 2) and a link that is over a string of text. :I've been fixing #1 by clicking on the link, and if it finds it, using that link to replace the one we have, and if possible, using the template. And you're using the brokenlink template correctly. Use it when the link goes to the generic page or says "not found". I'm going to be putting together a new template that can be used for inline references or links, but that's going to be on pass #2. -- sulfur 19:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :Short term: I'm working through them all right now. So, give me some time on that. Once the pass is done, then we can start figuring out what we've missed. -- sulfur 19:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Great. Thanks, guys. Very helpful! (And I loved your line about people not understanding how to use the WBM. hehe) 20:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :All of the ST.com links have now been cleaned up and use either the or templates. -- sulfur 19:40, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Kudos on splitting up the display graphics cat The way all that different stuff just went indiscriminatly into one category has been bugging me for ages, to the point that I've spent quite some time trying to come up with a way of splitting it. But I was always to skittish to actually start a discussion. It's a huge improvement now, thanks! -- Capricorn 22:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC) Wesley Crusher Quote I laughed when I saw the quote you added to Wesley Crusher. I don't know if that Guinan one or the "Shut up, Wesley!" from Picard is better though! :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:43, February 2, 2011 (UTC) :Guinan is far more level-headed than Picard, so Guinan > Picard. - 06:46, February 2, 2011 (UTC) Haha, I guess you're right. -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:51, February 2, 2011 (UTC) New Category I have suggested creating a category called "Planetary classifications" on the Memory Alpha:Category suggestions page. Being an admin, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the matter? -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:41, February 2, 2011 (UTC) :I'm going to take a look at this when I'm done with the Starfleet personnel subcats, as I'm not sure right now what classifications we have in canon and how much this would help. It sounds like a good idea in general, but I need to take a further look at what we have first. - 23:44, February 2, 2011 (UTC) OK, sure. Thanks. -- TrekFan Open a channel 23:45, February 2, 2011 (UTC) Image deletion Please undelete the file. It is a different product, which will be made apparent when I finish the page--Darth Duranium 07:01, February 8, 2011 (UTC) :It's the exact same image, excepting the background color, so why would we need two images? - 07:20, February 8, 2011 (UTC) Federation Starfleet Why are we adding "Federation Starfleet" to sidebars? Wasn't it decided a long time ago that Starfleet is Starfleet, and there is no differentiation between "Earth Starfleet" and "Federation Starfleet?" -Angry Future Romulan 19:18, February 10, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I am kind of wondering this too (sorry to chime in here), because I had (albeit slowly and not very often) going around and editing the sidebars to say "Starfleet" as a result of this. --Terran Officer 19:33, February 10, 2011 (UTC) Me too. -Angry Future Romulan 19:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC) ::Monkey see, monkey do. ::To be honest, I completely forgot about that, and have just been adding them without thinking further on it since I've been trying to change all "Earth" Starfleet references to "United Earth" Starfleet. ::So, my bad. - 03:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :So do we want to just change all of those sorts back, as the community at large considers Starfleet to be one thing, or are we going to do something different on this? In a way, this is why I have come to consider that family and career information should be found within the article's content and the sidebar for the stats about the person... somewhat less confusing. But anyhoo, however you want to do it works for me. --Terran Officer 05:19, February 11, 2011 (UTC) If I understand correctly, yes, we should change it to simply "Starfleet" anytime we see it listed as something else. -Angry Future Romulan 15:23, February 11, 2011 (UTC) Star Trek Online You have sent numerous messages etc to me about Star Trek Online not being cannon. However you are in error on that fact. Star Trek Online is considered official cannon by CBS Corp. the parent company of the Star Trek Franchise. The STO development team must have everything they do in the game cannon checked by CBS prior to implementing it in game. This has been discussed on the game forums and videos by the Executive Producer of the game D. Stahl on the game homepage. If the game is considered cannon by the parent corporation then it is cannon. There is also a discussion there about the changes to Earth Spacedock where the game designers admitted to mistakenly making the game spacedock look similar to the 2009 movie spacedock, because they were considering the changes made to the timeline by Nero's temporal incursion. Which they admitted were in error. They were also required by CBS to change this and because of player outcry against it. This took awhile to implement due to the cannon check process and design time. The point is whether people want it to be or not, Star Trek Online is considered to be an official part of the Star Trek Franchise. Unlike prior Star Trek Games, STO has to have each change made to it go through a rigorous cannon check by CBS. Something games like Bridge Commander, Star Trek Legacy and Star Trek Armada did not have to go through, because they were not ever evolving like Star Trek Online is. If you don't believe me go to ww.startrekonline.com and visit the developmental forums and watch the videos by the developmental team. They will explain the process they are required to go through by CBS to ensure the game follows cannon. Mikeofborg 12:08, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :Just because the game developers are required to keep their story consistent with established Star Trek continuity, does not make it canon. The novels published by Pocket Books are required to be put up to a similar process of approval, but that does not make them canon. -Angry Future Romulan 23:28, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Leslie Please check the discussion notes for Lt. Leslie. I think that the case has been made for twin Leslies, with different first names. Per the canon conventions, "The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances." It's not reasonable to assume that McCoy doesn't know a dead man when he sees one. It's not reasonable that Leslie runs around changing shirts and names. It is reasonable that Paskey plays more than one character.